Cockfighting in Latin America: Culture, Masculinity, and Society

Introduction

Cockfighting is a sport that exists in many different regions of the world, but it is particularly prevalent in Latin America. Although many people believe that cockfighting is immoral and constitutes cruelty to animals, it remains a popular and legal sport throughout the region. This paper examines the role of this sport in society and its influence on individuals in Latin America.

The Global Context of Cockfighting

According to Hicks (2001), cockfighting takes place throughout the world, including in the United States, where it is illegal in most states. Hicks also notes that the rules associated with cockfighting vary from country to country and from culture to culture, and that special terms have been created to describe the physical characteristics of cocks, fighting styles, and feather color.

"Deciding which owner or bettor wins may be determined by a single fight or a series. The betting system can be straightforward or sophisticated, with odds laid and individual bettors pooling their resources and wagering as a group. But no matter where you travel, the only woman you will find at a match is the occasional tourist or anthropologist; cockfighting is universally a masculine pastime" (Hicks 2001, p. 194).

Men throughout the world participate in cockfights, and this pastime is particularly prevalent in many of the countries that comprise Latin America.

The Role of Cockfighting in Society: The Blend of Man and Cock

Research suggests that cockfighting generates a kind of "survival of the fittest" mentality among its participants. In many countries, cockfighting is also seen as a test of masculinity. Many researchers have concluded that the sport is actually a dynamic between a man and a cock — a dynamic often referred to as a "blend."

According to Turner (2001), much of the societal role of cockfighting can be observed in the fact that cocks are fitted with sharp metal spurs. In nature, cocks have spurs as part of their natural equipment; however, metal spurs are present only when cocks are bred by human beings to fight. Within many societies that permit cockfighting, owners typically have assistants, and the projection of the role of "assistant" into the cockfight blend creates a position for a technical helper who cultivates and enhances the natural equipment of the cock in whom the owner has an interest. The metal spurs in the cockfight blend — "razor-sharp, pointed steel swords, four or five inches long" — are the counterpart of the cock's natural spurs (Turner 2001).

Turner further argues that producing these spurs, giving them ritual status, and fastening them to the birds is equivalent to performing a service for the owner of the cock, who is a person. As such, the spurs are representative of certain qualities associated with both cocks and people. From one end of the spectrum, the blend involves the fighting cocks; from the other, it requires human social and purposive action and interaction. The metal spurs are the primary result of this interaction.

Turner also explains that the cockfight blend contains elements that have no place in a natural cockfight and that, in fact, much of it negates natural fighting. For instance, the blend involves an audience, handlers for the cocks, and a framework of prior engagements among owners, handlers, and previously fought cocks. There are also astrological cues associated with how and when to fight each type of cock, a fifty-square-foot ring, a wicker cage used to congregate and agitate hesitant cocks, and an umpire bound by regulations written on palm-leaf manuscripts handed down through generations (Turner 2001). The ritual of engagement includes precisely timed rounds and intermissions. Moreover, the motivation for the fight does not come from the animal itself — handlers and owners make all decisions regarding whether the cocks will fight, when they will fight, and who their opponents will be. The idea of winning or losing the cockfight, in this sense, has no meaning for the cocks themselves (Turner 2001).

In a natural cockfight, winning means the ability to rule the roost, to eat the most food, or to secure whatever guarantees the cock's physical fitness. A natural cockfight victory does not entail being sliced to death by steel blades. Within the context of the blend, however, the winner is the cock left standing when the other falls — even if the winner himself falls an instant later. The winner still wins the same amount even if he too dies immediately. In many cases, when a cock dies in a fight it is taken home and eaten, regardless of whether it was the winner or the loser (Turner 2001).

Within society, there are two owners and two owned cocks. The cocks do not exist as natural cocks; rather, they are bound to a daily routine of indulgent pampering contrived and monitored by human beings. Their ability to breed is controlled by humans, and they are not permitted to fight spontaneously (Turner 2001). Nevertheless, both wild and owned cocks share a connection: within the context of the cockfight blend, the instincts of the wild cock and the owned cock are combined. As a result, "a single cock in the blend is simultaneously the prized and pampered property of a social man and a wild and violent autonomous animal" (Turner 2001, p. 31).

Turner further explains that the combining of the wild and owned cock serves as a foundational achievement that invites the necessary blending within the context of a cockfight — a blending in which the owner is a reflection of his cock. The cocks serve as substitutes for their owners' personalities and embody characteristics of their owners. The cock functions as a symbol or exaggeration of the owner's self — the self-absorbed masculine ego. Most significantly, the cock in the blend is a reflection of the owner's social status, which makes the cockfight blend a kind of "status bloodbath" (Turner 2001).

This becomes especially significant when one considers that in many societies where cockfighting is prevalent, "status is strictly inherited and cannot be changed, certainly not by a cockfight. The cockfight, says Geertz, makes nothing happen. 'No one's status really changes. You cannot ascend the status ladder by winning cockfights; you cannot, as an individual, really ascend it at all. Nor can you descend it that way.' But in the blend, you can" (Turner 2001, p. 31).

In the blend, one can rise or fall, defeat or be defeated. In many societies where cockfighting is prevalent, open conflict is not permissible and public displays of social rivalry are carefully veiled. For instance, in Bali — where cockfighting is widespread — the Balinese have been described as shy about engaging in open conflict, and as careful, submissive, and controlled: "what they call alus, 'polished,' 'smooth' — they rarely face what they can turn away from, rarely resist what they can evade" (Turner 2001).

However, when men are part of the blend, they can attack each other vigorously, and social status can be gained or lost. Within the context of the cockfight, men living in these societies are permitted to portray themselves as untamed and vicious, with the explosive force associated with instinctual aggression (Turner 2001). Outside the blend — in the social world of people and the natural world of cocks — a man's social status is entirely separate from the status of a wild, self-directed cock in a fight. As an aspect of the blend, however, the status of a man in society is linked to the performance of his cock, and this can carry real psychosocial costs. When the cock wins, the man's prestige is confirmed by the alignment between his status outside the blend and his cock's status within it. Conversely, if the cock loses, the man's prestige is damaged by the discord between these two statuses (Turner 2001).

Conclusion

The research indicates that cockfighting is a popular sport throughout the world and that in some regions it has become a ritual passed on from generation to generation. Latin America is one of the regions where cockfighting has been made a legal sport, regulated by the governments of individual nations.

The role of the sport in society is that of projecting the man onto the gamecock. Men use gamecocks and the cockfight itself to project themselves in ways that are not possible within ordinary social life. In many societies where cockfighting is prevalent, a man's social status is determined at birth and is difficult — if not impossible — to change. Within the world of cockfighting, however, men have the ability to alter their status. Cockfighting is therefore viewed as a test of masculinity and manhood, an elaborate affair that must be government-regulated and that functions as a long-standing status symbol, particularly in Mexico.

As it relates to the influence of cockfighting in Latin America, the research indicates that it serves as a popular pastime and a tradition. Males are particularly invested in the sport because it has come to symbolize masculinity over many generations. Cockfighting can carry negative consequences for the loser given the time and money required to raise gamecocks. However, it may also be argued that cockfighting is a more productive and safer activity than some of the illegal alternatives available to young men. Whatever the case, cockfighting is likely to continue as a tradition — and perhaps a rite of passage — for males living in Latin America and other regions of the world where the sport is practiced.

References

Aizenman, N.C. "Getting Physical, Talon by Talon, in the Cockpits of Nicaragua." Washington Post, August 15, 2006, p. A10.

"Cock Fights in Mexico." Retrieved from http://www.surf-mexico.com/culture/cockfights.html

Hicks, David. "Blood and Feathers: Masculine Identity in East Timorese Cockfighting." World and I 16, no. 1 (2001): 194.

Turner, Mark. Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.